Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1595
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2836
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý »

All4Ɇn wrote:
08 Jul 2020 09:21
Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.
I don't see you asking anything but it sounds like an interesting idea.
Maybe series of voiced and voiceless spirants?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7476
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar »

All4Ɇn wrote:
08 Jul 2020 09:21
Currently thinking about making a Slavic language. My idea right now is for one that maintained Greek as its liturgical language rather than Church Slavonic and was in general more closely connected to Greece. Grammar would be similar to the Southern Slavic languages but vocabulary and phonology would be much closer to Greek than any real Slavic language.
[+1] I'd say go for it!

User avatar
All4Ɇn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1595
Joined: 01 Mar 2014 07:19

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by All4Ɇn »

Omzinesý wrote:
08 Jul 2020 11:27
I don't see you asking anything but it sounds like an interesting idea.
Maybe series of voiced and voiceless spirants?
Sorry, I was actually asking if people thought it would be an interesting idea. [xD] Planning on it having both /θ/ and /ð/. /ð/ is easy to derive phonologically. /θ/ though might have to be reserved for loans.
shimobaatar wrote:
08 Jul 2020 17:30
[+1] I'd say go for it!
[tick]

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore »

Questions about kinds of adverbs.

Backdrop to backdrop; maybe skippable.
Spoiler:
My conlang Arpien has a completely specified context-free generative grammar; and not much else so far.
It has 102 parts-of-speech or word-classes or lexical categories.
22 of them can be phrases; I label them with the capital Roman letters A thru V.
They’re all open classes. The earlier in the alphabet they come, the opener and larger they are.
The other 80 classes are not branchable; they can’t be phrases. So they’re more closed and smaller than classes A thru V.
I label them classes 1 thru 80.

Only classes A and B truly correspond to any traditional phrase-classes.
A are clauses and sentences.
B are nominals, nominal phrases, nouns, noun phrases, pronominals, pronominal phrases, pronouns, ... etc.

The grammar has 100 rules.
The way I define “head” and “branching”, they’re all head-final and left-branching.
Each part-of-speech, except A and B, is the head of exactly one rule.
It determines both what part-of-speech the other component is, and what part-of-speech the whole phrase is.
Backdrop to questions: come back to read it if you want to, or skip it if it’s too long.

Only classes A thru F are “modifiable”, in the sense that, the grammar permits speakers to produce a phrase of one of those six classes, from another phrase of the same class, followed by a word of a particular class.
Explicitly: the following rules are included:
A —> A + C
B —> B + F
C —> C + 33
D —> D + 38
E —> E + 43
F —> F + 48

Class C includes all ad-clausal adverbs and ad-sentential adverbs.
Class F includes all adjectives.
Class 33 includes those ad-adverbal adverbs which can modify an ad-sentential adverb; some of them will be intensifiers.

Class D includes all the one-participant verbs, because of the production rule
A —> B + D
So class 38 includes all those ad-verbal adverbs that can modify monovalent verbs.

I don’t know what to call class E; I think it will include complementizers?
It’s the head of the rule
B —> A + E
Using the definition “an adverb is any modifier that can modify something that isn’t a noun-phrase”,
class 43 must be a class of some sort of adverb; but I haven’t yet been able to come up with any intuition about them.

Class 48 includes all the ad-adjectival adverbs. Some of them will be intensifiers.

......

Finally, the question:

I’m pretty sure there are natlangs that make ad-verbal adverbs and ad-adjectival adverbs two distinct parts-of-speech.

How strange, or unnaturalistic, or unrealistic, is it for my conlang to have six distinct categories of modifiers like this?
Adjectives, sentential adverbs, ad-verbal adverbs, ad-adjectival adverbs, ad-adverbal adverbs, and whatever class 43 turns out to be?

______________________________________________________________

All the open classes and their rules:
Spoiler:
A clauses
B nouns
A —> A + C clausal adverbs
A —> B + D monovalent verbs
B —> A + E complementizers; an open class?
B —> B + F adjectives
C —> A + G clausal conjunctions, including subordinators and FANBOYS.
C —> B + H one kind of postposition or case-marker; resulting phrase can modify an entire sentence or clause
D —> A + I what turns a clause into a one-place verb?
D —> B + J bivalent verbs
E —> A + K don’t know yet
E —> B + L don’t know yet
F —> A + M relativizer
F —> B + N postposition creating a phrase that can modify a noun; for example, a genitive postposition.
A —> C + O a “verb” that takes an adverb as its argument?
A —> D + P “ “ “ “ “ verb “ “ “
A —> E + Q “ “ “ “ “ complementizer “ “ “
A —> F + R “ “ “ “ “ adjective “ “ “
B —> C + S something that nominalises clausal adverbs
B —> D + T nominalizers that nominalize one-place verbs
B —> E + U nominalizers that nominalize complementizers! Wow!
B —> F + V nominalizers that nominalize adjectives; like maybe “-ness” particles.

Classes 1-16 are ways of making clauses about classes G-V respectively.
Classes 17-32 are ways of nominalising classes G-V.

Classes 33-48 can make phrases of classes C-F out of a word or phrase of classes C-F.

Classes 49-64 can make phrases of classes G-V out of clauses (class A).
Classes 65-80 can make phrases of classes G-V out of nouns. I suppose that makes many (or most?) of them postpositions of various sorts.
But because of the production rule
J —> B + 68
class 68 is the small closed class of trivalent verbs. (e.g. give, show, tell).
(Unless I goofed up!)
Edit: BTW in case you didn’t already figure it out, Arpien is an experimental engelang.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3935
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor »

That's a yay from me. It is realistic to me, even if it is not naturalistic in the strict sense. I think I already talked to you in the past about ad-sentential and ad-verbal adverbs and that they are syntactically (and maybe morphologically) different in some languages. I also read something on ad-adjectival adverbs the other day and that they pattern with degree words in some languages as a class. I am not so sure ad-adverbal adverbs but you are just continuing a concept that has been started by natlangs. Regarding class E, wouldn't existential copulas also be part of that class?

B —> A + E

B is a full clause and A is a noun (phrase). If E is not an intransitive verb, it could still be some more functional stuff like a copula or something. Why should class E include complementizers? I don't really get that.

Btw, do you have an Arpien grammar written up somewhere? I guess I am now at a point in my conlanging career where I could read through it and give you comments if you'd like. If it is a pdf, that would be perfect.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by eldin raigmore »

Btw, do you have an Arpien grammar written up somewhere? I guess I am now at a point in my conlanging career where I could read through it and give you comments if you'd like. If it is a pdf, that would be perfect.
I did, but the keepers of the site deleted it because they said
1. I didn’t have enough vocabulary and
2. I didn’t update it often enough.

I’ll have to write it up again. When I do I’ll try to remember to send you a copy. That way maybe it won’t get annihilated again.

Post Reply